MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625554569 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.42.6.919

Chinese Similes and Metaphors for Family

2011· article· en· W2625554569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul C. Rosenblatt, Xiaohui Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaMetaphorSociologyConceptual metaphorPsychologyLinguisticsLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores a culture and a research method, based on the conjecture that common similes and metaphors in a culture for “family” may offer insights into important aspects of the meanings, values, and ideals connected to family in that culture. With a focus on China, we looked for the first similes and metaphors for family that came up on the two most popular Chinese search engines, Baidu and Google. We winnowed the first hits, eliminating those that were not similes and metaphors and those that were to websites that few other websites linked to. In the end, we had nine Chinese similes and metaphors for family. They include: Family is a gentle harbor, a harbor for all seasons, a haven or refuge, a gas station, the center of the earth, and a little wooden boat on the river. We believe that these figures of speech represent Chinese cultural values that are important to Chinese thinking about families. Included in that, the figures of speech seem to us to represent the centrality of family in a society where for many the help they need will have to come from family. The method of investigating similes and metaphors for family as a way of understanding family in a culture has its risks, including issues of whose reality is reflected on websites and how search engines give priority to what comes up first in a search. But the method also seems worth considering as an addition to other social science tools for illuminating aspects of family life in a culture.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.321
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.085 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207